Seems pretty obvious, no? I mean, wouldn't you want to rely on someone who knew something about mountain climbing? Conversely, if you wanted to write an article about chemistry would you hire someone who knows about mountain climbing but not chemistry?

The answers may seem obvious and logical, but neither logic nor knowledge seem to mean much to the Sierra Club or its adventure and lifestyle editor Katie O'Reilly. Otherwise, why would O'Reilly be writing an article about cancer-causing chemicals?

Katie O'Reilly is Sierra's adventure and lifestyle editor. Follow her on Twitter @katieowrites.

Since she was kind enough to provide a Twitter handle, let's take a look at some of her recent tweets:

Hmm. Shelter dogs, teenage girl glacier climbers, and bat watching. Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of chemistry or toxicology in there but let's give her a break. Maybe O'Reilly has hidden credentials which enable her to understand these concepts but just hasn't tweeted about them lately. Maybe this shows up in the Sierra article.

No.

The article contains a bonanza of anti-scientific garbage. A very high mountain of it. Shall we climb to the summit and check out the view?

I recently wrote how the FDA should be ashamed of itself for bowing to pressure from a coalition of "environmental" groups (1) and instituting a policy that is so atrociously antiscientific that a sophomore organic 101 student would be shaking his/her head in disbelief. (See FDA Food Additive Ban Is Unscientific And Irrational). O'Reilly's article is little more than a synopsis of the FDA decision with input from additional "experts."

"Just in time to lend Halloween festivities a bitter twist, the Food and Drug Administration earlier this month banned seven artificial additives widely used to flavor processed foods including candies, baked goods, booze, soda, and gum... the flavors were causing cancer in laboratory animals...[The move to get these seven chemicals banned] all started with a first-of-its-kind 2016 petition and resulting lawsuit from a coalition of public health and environmental groups.

Katie O'Reilly, Sierra's adventure and lifestyle editor.

It should not be the least bit surprising that the groups that pressured the FDA are the same bunch of chemophobes (minus the chemistry) that make a very decent living ensuring that Americans live in constant fear of chemicals, regardless if they are harmful, harmless, or somewhere in between. And who might these folks be?

The newly prohibited synthetic compounds—benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether, myrcene, pulegone, pyridine, and styrene—are used to help mimic natural flavors like mint, cinnamon, and garlic. What’s most scary about them is that you can’t simply memorize this list and scan food labels for those additives.

The good news is that you don't have to. You are already eating them because they occur naturally in food. All seven. Most are found in numbers of fruits, vegetables, or herbs. I am showing only one example of food for each chemical.

Maple Holistics sells a bunch of stuff for your hair. Backe has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Perhaps his credentials are in error, possibly a result of a misspelling?

Caleb Backe, a Sellness expert.

Maybe that's it. Either way, he fails to recognize that the chemicals in the apple or those ether extracted from an apple or synthesized in a lab are identical in every way. If the chemicals are carcinogenic then so are the foods that naturally contain them (1).

Why do food manufacturers use so many artificial flavors? Backe explains that breaking flavors down into their chemical components is cheaper than sourcing the real thing.

Backe doesn't seem to be all that well versed in economics either. Let's test this out by playing...

If you're a food manufacturer and want to add more of a flavor chemical which is already in the food, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a bottle of X for $25 when you could buy a different bottle containing the exact same X for $15. The only difference between the bottles is $10. Backe wants you to buy the $25 bottle. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, right? (3).

“Consumers’ awareness is increasing all the time, and this is just part of that larger trend... More and more, I think people just want real food.”

Caroline Cox

I'm going to have to disagree with this. I think what people want is real information.

(1) Has anyone wondered why environmental groups are sticking their noses into trace chemicals in foods or the containers they come in? Assuming that there is any real issue here (there isn't) it is a medical issue, not an environmental one. Yet, we see a non-stop barrage of medical scares from groups like NRDC and EWG. They know little or nothing about chemistry, toxicology, or medicine but are right in the middle of a massive effort to frighten Americans about chemicals. Why are they involved at all?

(2) Yet we coffee drinking apple and cranberry eaters still roam the earth. Because while the "big seven" may cause cancer in genetically cancer-prone rats who are fed high doses, they are found in very low quantities in the food.

Dr. Josh Bloom, the Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science, comes from the world of drug discovery, where he did research for more than 20 years. The field of drug discovery involves chemistry, biochemistry, toxicology, and pharmacology - skills that he has used to write on a wide variety of topics since he joined ACSH in 2010. One of the topics he has tackled is the so-called "opioid crisis." He is now recognized as an expert in this area and was the first journalist to write a nationally published opinion piece about the unintended consequences of a governmental crackdown on prescription pain medications (New York Post, 2013). Since that time he has published more than 20 op-eds in regional and national newspapers on different aspects of the crisis. In that same year, he testified at an FDA hearing, where he noted that fentanyl was the real danger, something that would be proven years later. At that time almost no one had heard of the drug.

He was also the first writer (2016) to study, dissect and ultimately debunk the manipulated statistics used by the CDC to justify its recommendations for opioid prescribing, which have resulted in Draconian requirements for prescribing pain medications as well as government-mandated, involuntary tapering of patients receiving opioid treatment, both of which have caused great harm and needless suffering to chronic pain patients. His 2016 article, "Six Charts Designed to Confuse You," is the seminal work on CDC deception and has been adopted by patient advocacy groups and individuals and has been sent to governors and state legislatures.

Dr. Bloom earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Virginia, followed by postdoctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania. His career in drug discovery research began at Lederle Laboratories, which was acquired by Wyeth in 1994, which itself was acquired by Pfizer in 2009. During this time he participated in research in a number of therapeutic areas, including diabetes and obesity, antibiotics, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and oncology. His group discovered the novel antibiotic Tygacil®, which was approved by the FDA for use against resistant bacterial infections in 2005. He is the author of 25 patents, and 35 academic papers, including a chapter on new therapies for hepatitis C in Burger’s Medicinal Chemistry, Drug Discovery and Development, 7th Edition (Wiley, 2010), and has given numerous invited lectures about how the pharmaceutical industry really works.

Dr. Bloom joined the American Council on Science and Health in 2010 as ACSH’s Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, and has since published more than 60 op-eds in numerous periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, New Scientist, The New York Post, National Review Online, The Boston Herald, and The Chicago Tribune, and given numerous radio and television interview on topics related to drugs and chemicals. In 2014, Dr. Bloom was invited to become a featured writer for the site Science 2.0, where he wrote more 75 pieces on a broad range of topics.

We are funded mostly by readers like you. Please consider donating!

"Big Fears Little Risks" is a documentary, but unlike most of what you see on places like Netflix, it is pro-science, and not scaremongering trace chemicals, food, or the modern world. We instead are going to take back the discourse from trial lawyers and the trade groups they use to profit from fear.

The American Council on Science and Health is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are fully tax-deductible. ACSH does not accept government grants or contracts, nor do we have an endowment. We raise our funds each year primarily from individuals and foundations.